Page 1234 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 11 April 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I am also surprised to see Mr Parton and his Liberal colleagues coming out to condemn the government for deriving revenue from an unethical industry when they have such a strong history themselves of taking donations from what some might describe as unethical sources and voting against proposals for donation reform.
Mr Parton may not recall—it was before his time in this place, although he may have covered it in his previous occupation—that in 2015 ACT Labor and the Canberra Liberals got together to undermine the integrity of our political donation laws. They both voted to remove the $10,000 cap on political donations and at the same time voted to increase the public funding for ACT elections from $2 to $8 per vote. It was a case where both of them were happy to accept the money from any donations but also to take from the public purse and increase the volume of income as well. If we want to talk about standards on these things, let us reflect back on the position that parties took in this place last term.
It was the Canberra Liberals who earlier this year opposed the introduction of a ban on political donations from property developers as part of the elections inquiry, a move the Greens are proud to have secured commitment for through the parliamentary agreement. The Canberra Liberals are not interested in any assessment of whether their own revenue streams are ethical, but now, when there is an opportunity for political point scoring, Mr Parton is all about talking about it in this place.
Despite this apparent hypocrisy, I would like to speak to the substantive issue that Mr Parton has raised regarding the revenue that the government currently derives from its contract with Tabcorp. While the current contract with Tabcorp states that there is no wagering tax payable to the territory on its totaliser licence, there is a tax payable on its sports bookmaking licence. At the time of the deal, Tabcorp estimated that the expected effective tax rate for this licence would be less than one per cent of turnover.
My understanding is that the current arrangement with Tabcorp is subject to the terms of the contract that was signed as part of the ACTTAB sale. The Greens would ideally like to see the government move away from accepting all gaming and betting revenue over time. However, we accept that, due to the existing arrangement, this is something that will need to be considered once the current contract expires.
What I think is worth reflecting on here, though, is that the government actually sold the TAB. I really support that. That was something I tested with our party membership, because it crosses into interesting space around privatisation of government services. My party was extremely clear that we felt it was inappropriate for the government to own a betting agency. Let us go back to some of the fundamental questions here. The government sold a betting agency and it was able to use that money to reinvest in the Canberra community for a range of other things. I think that is a far better place for the government to be operating than running a betting agency. Again, I see that as an advancement in government policy, and one that the Greens fully support.
Mr Coe interjecting—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video